Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Hugh Pickens writes writes "After the Watergate scandal taught Richard Nixon the consequences of recording White House conversations, none of his successors has dared to do it. But Nixon wasn't the first. He got the idea from his predecessor Lyndon Johnson, who felt there was an obligation to allow historians to eventually eavesdrop on his presidency. Now David Taylor reports on BBC that the latest set of declassified tapes of President Lyndon Johnson's telephone calls show that by the time of the Presidential election in November 1968, LBJ had evidence that Nixon had sabotaged the Vietnam war peace talks — or, as he put it, that Nixon was guilty of treason and had 'blood on his hands'. It begins in the summer of 1968. Nixon feared a breakthrough at the Paris Peace talks designed to find a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam war that he knew would derail his campaign. Nixon therefore set up a clandestine back-channel to the South Vietnamese involving Anna Chennault, a senior campaign adviser. In late October 1968 there were major concessions from Hanoi which promised to allow meaningful talks to get underway in Paris. This was exactly what Nixon feared. Chennault was dispatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal. Meanwhile the FBI had bugged the ambassador's phone and transcripts of Chennault's calls were sent to the White House. Johnson was told by Defense Secretary Clark Clifford that the interference was illegal and threatened the chance for peace. The president gave Humphrey enough information to sink his opponent but by then, a few days from the election, Humphrey had been told he had closed the gap with Nixon and would win the presidency so Humphrey decided it would be too disruptive to the country to accuse the Republicans of treason, if the Democrats were going to win anyway. In the end Nixon won by less than 1% of the popular vote, escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, and finally settled for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968."

That's because you are working with hindsight knowledge of what happened after the decision by Humphrey not to expose Nixon. If you remove that knowledge from the picture then Humphrey did the right thing in that he avoided complicating the election at the last minute and throwing the country into further turmoil. If he won as he was led to believe he would, he could have then prosecuted Nixon via normal channels. After Nixon became president it became infinitely more difficult to prosecute him because he was a sitting president and had all the protections that that includes.

That's because you are working with hindsight knowledge of what happened after the decision by Humphrey not to expose Nixon. If you remove that knowledge from the picture then Humphrey did the right thing in that he avoided complicating the election at the last minute and throwing the country into further turmoil.

The avoidance of short-term turmoil by avoiding accountability for gross misdeeds by the powerful is a recurring trend that encourages overreach and abuse by politicians (both candidates and officeholders), and is in no way "for the good of the country", though that's the excuse that members of the club of the super-powerful use (perhaps even to themselves) to justify not holding other members of that club accountable.

And it hardly takes specific hindsight to recognize that not holding traitors accountable encourages treason.

Worse than treason? If Nixon was ready to screw up a peace deal, if he'd had anything on the Democrats, he would have used it. Nixon sent the plumbers to Watergate to dig up dirt on the Democrats in 72.

Putting pure politicians in charge of military decisions (or anything in need of objective reality) is a problem.

If TFA's claims are true, Nixon was clearly breaking the law by acting as a private citizen negotiating with foreign government, just as Carter has done more recently. However, the claim that his actions were treasonous are just plain wrong: treason in the United States consists of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and nothing else qualifies. In case you've forgotten, it was North Vietnam that was the enemy.

No, those of you who think I'm being a partisan hack by singling out the worst war criminal of our time are being knee jerk partisan hacks. Obama has done many bad things, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, violating the war powers act, etc. But none of those come close to causing hundreds of thousands of innocent people to die so your cronies get lucrative war contracts. Obama is a common criminal, Bush is directly responsible for more American deaths than Bin Laden. Get some perspective.

In this context, the definition of "directly" that you are implying is useless. E.g., was it the solider, rifle, bullet, the disruption of basic neural function due to the brain being massively traumatized, the cessation of cardio-pulmonary activity, or the resulting cascade failure of metabolic pathways that "directly" caused the enemy combatant to die when shot in the head?

In this context, a political leader is 'directly' responsible for the consequences of a decision when those consequences were reasonably foreseeable without the benefit of hindsight. Every decision has tradeoffs, so it is expected that a political leader has weighed those tradeoffs and decided that the foreseeable positive/desirable consequences outweigh the foreseeable negative/undesirable consequences such that the tradeoff is acceptable and he/she is willing to accept responsibility for the outcome (i.e., both positive and negative consequences).

On the other hand, a political leader is 'indirectly' responsible for those consequences of decisions which were not reasonably foreseeable due to the limits of the knowledge available to them at the time. This acknowledgement does not and should not, however, always absolve the leader of any accountability related to indirect consequences.

To argue that Bush was not 'directly' responsible for American deaths you have to argue that American deaths were not a foreseeable consequence of going to war. That deaths are a foreseeable and well-understood consequence of war does not, of course, automatically mean that going to war was a bad decision. To make that judgment requires that you decide whether or not the positive consequences of the war outweigh the negative consequences (such as dead American soldiers). To paraphrase one of my old JROTC instructors, a politician should only decide to go to war if, on the 10,000th time he does so, he can still fold up that flag, look that kid's mother in the eye as he hands it over, and still believe that it was worth it. FDR and Churchill would have been able to--and history would agree with them. Would Bush have been able to do the same? I personally do not have an answer to that question, but that is the bar that should be set.

Then you need to state that in your original statement in order to have any credibility. Otherwise, you just come off as a knee jerk partisan hack.

Hatta remarked on a few of our most prominent national war criminals. The fact that they're all Republican wasn't anywhere in his post; nor was it relevant. Turn off "fair" and "balanced" reporting (which includes virtually all network news, I feel compelled to add) and try to understand that some things in this world are simply true, and all the spin and fake balance in the world won't change that.

"Opinions differ on shape of World" type reporting is the death of reason and understanding.

Clinton did that because his generals enforcing the post Desert Storm sanctions DEMANDED the attacks. And started calling him "dereliction of duty" for not bombing more things.

The main conflict Clinton got us in was UN approved actions to stop several civil wars where people were murdering their neighbors women and children in the streets after Communism broke down. That's hardly "warmongering" which is why the GOP hated it so much.

Even the Monica Lewinsky thing was an unprecedented PERSONAL lawsuit against

Coming to think of it: the only president that doesn't need hanging was Jimmy Carter.

None of those presidents were deliberately acting against U.S. interest (except Nixon). Of course, if you allow yourself the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, Carter also did some things that were highly detrimental to the U.S.'s strategic interests—arming the mujahideen, for example:

In 1979, he began arming and providing funds for the mujahideen in Afghanistan to help them topple their government out of fear that communism would spread to the Middle East and would dry up our oil supply.

After the Soviet Union fell (under Bush Sr.), the U.S. stopped funding them.

They started to hate the U.S. for supporting and prolonging the war but not helping build their country back up afterwards.

Portions of the mujahideen became what we now know as the Taliban.

The Taliban, in turn, trained and protected Al Qaeda, who hijacked American planes and flew them into buildings about 11.5 years ago.

The Taliban are also killing American troops in Afghanistan now with weapons that the U.S. government gave them.

Of course, Reagan expanded the program significantly, and Bush cut off funds and failed to take any actions to stabilize Afghanistan after the Soviets left. But Bush's decision not to interfere would not have mattered as much had Carter not interfered in the first place.

Then again, I can't think of any time when the U.S. tried to topple a foreign government that didn't come back to bite it in the you-know-where. One of the primary reasons why so many extremist groups exist in the first place is because the U.S. government helped tear down Iran's democratic government and replaced it with a puppet government under the Shah, which it supported for decades.

I'm not saying that we wouldn't have terrorism if the U.S. had not provided material support to people who would probably be called terrorists today, tried to set up puppet governments in Iran and other places, or allowed Afghanistan to degrade into a horrible state of civil war after the Soviets pulled out, but we'd likely have a lot fewer terrorists, and it is quite clear that the terrorists who did exist would not have as much money and would not be as well armed. If nothing else, these are lessons that future Presidents need to learn.

Coming to think of it: the only president that doesn't need hanging was Jimmy Carter.

None of those presidents were deliberately acting against U.S. interest (except Nixon). Of course, if you allow yourself the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, Carter also did some things that were highly detrimental to the U.S.'s strategic interests—arming the mujahideen, for example:

In 1979, he began arming and providing funds for the mujahideen in Afghanistan to help them topple their government out of fear that communism would spread to the Middle East and would dry up our oil supply.

After the Soviet Union fell (under Bush Sr.), the U.S. stopped funding them.

They started to hate the U.S. for supporting and prolonging the war but not helping build their country back up afterwards.

Portions of the mujahideen became what we now know as the Taliban.

The Taliban, in turn, trained and protected Al Qaeda, who hijacked American planes and flew them into buildings about 11.5 years ago.

The Taliban are also killing American troops in Afghanistan now with weapons that the U.S. government gave them.

Of course, Reagan expanded the program significantly, and Bush cut off funds and failed to take any actions to stabilize Afghanistan after the Soviets left. But Bush's decision not to interfere would not have mattered as much had Carter not interfered in the first place.

The funny thing is that France and the UK are currently calling for arming Syrian rebels. We've lost count of Syrian rebel factions and now they start shooting at each other. Exactly what the country needs. More guns. Because they will gladly give them back when they are done with Assad...

In the US we have a pretty good history of not hanging outgoing politicians for controversial political decisions they made while in office. This is one of the reasons that our politicians are so very willing to leave office. You will notice that there are various regimes in the world where outgoing leadership turns into political prisoners or are executed... you may also notice that the leadership in those parts tends to do rather oppressive things to cling to power: e.g. when people protested Hugo Chavez he brought out snipers.

Western democracies have prosecuted a variety of people for war crimes, but it doesn't take a flaming Republican to notice that there were a variety of very important qualitative differences between the likes of Adolf Hitler's gang and GWBush's...

I contend that your proposed alternative is significantly uglier than the current situation.

Really? "Let us get away with war crimes or we'll go all Chavez on you" That's the best excuse you have? Is the rule of law simply not an option?

Changing presidents in the US is not regime change. We have the same constitution and the same body of laws. The military swears to defend the constitution against foreign and domestic enemies. And a treasonous president trying to illegally hold on to power is a domestic enemy. If we as a country were sensible to hold presidents accountable when they commit treason, we'd also have a military that is sensible enough to know that their allegiance is to the constitution and the rule of law, and not the president and the rule of man.

Is Bush Hitler? No. But he still has more blood on his hands than any free man should. He deserves to hang for his crimes.

So, you want to execute most, if not every, American head of state over the last 50 years*.

Well, you should note his original post also said "Allowing our leaders to get away with war crimes only ensures future war crimes." So it can be reasonably argued that as soon as we tolerated one President's war crimes, it would be expected that his successors would be emboldened to (and perhaps even be *expected* to) commit further war crimes.

If you want to argue that Hatta's definition of "war crimes" is flawed, fine. But if you do accept the actions he cites as war crimes, and that execution is the

People are still repeating this trash? It was debunked the day after it was first broadcast by the Venezuelan media conglomerates (such as Univision, which backed the actual coup attempt both financially and politically). The only people shot at that protest were the counter-protesters who backed Chavez, none of them hit by rifle fire, just pistol rounds (probably from the bodyguards of the wealthy protesters). FWIW, Univision (based in Caracas) is the Fox News of Latin America.

That is, a nation full of people who are willing to give away all of their freedoms to the government so they can feel safe, and who accuse anyone of opposing these measures of being on the Bad Guy Team.

How is not exposing a presidential candidate's treason putting country ahead of personal and party gain? Just because he would gain politically does not automatically mean that he shouldn't do it "for the good of the country." Those things are not exclusive.

As far as this report indicates, Humphrey BELIEVED he put his nation's interests before his own. That said, your belief in good and evil is different from his and mine. No two parties will ever agree on what the right thing to do is in every circumstance, but I would trade what we have now for good intentions.

How is not exposing a presidential candidate's treason putting country ahead of personal and party gain? Just because he would gain politically does not automatically mean that he shouldn't do it "for the good of the country." Those things are not exclusive.

Most people in this discussion seem to forget two things: First, the '68 election was one of the ugliest and bitterest of the 20th century.* Second *Humphrey believed he was winning". (And he very nearly did.)

Releasing this information under those circumstances would have been seen as pouring gasoline on the fire, when there was no need to do so, leading to further division and dissension within the country at a time when it could ill afford it.

* Consider that the campaign had already been marked by Robert Kennedy's assassination, Martin Luther King's assassination, the Tet offensive, widespread violence and protests over racial issues and the war...

Seems to me, Humphrey actually put the good of his Country ahead of personal and party gain. This is a far cry from what we've become as a Nation.

Afaik Humphrey didn't expose Nixon because polls told him he would win anyway and that there was no need to steep that low.And what would the use have been after having lost.Better to wait for the rematch and use it then.

Sadly Nixon isn't around to answer for this but perhaps a few of his cohorts are. Personally anyone who's still around who knew about this and had access to the evidence but didn't act about it either from complicity or because they thought they could use it as a bargaining chip should be stuck up against a wall and shot!

First off, this tape is old news, it was released years ago, no idea why it's now getting traction. Secondly, in the conversation (IIRC, it was with Everett Dirkson, but might be wrong, haven't heard it for 6 months or so), Johnson states that he is reluctant to release the tape as he is afraid of how the country will react, given the shitstorm we were already living with, but you can hear that he is really pissed and feeling hamstrung. I was never a fan of either of them, but I think he should have released the tape and fuck the consequences. I suggest you listen to the tape before stating that he was stupid, a coward or hoping to sabotage the peace talks his administration had set in motion. Just my opinion.

I'm reminded that Clinton's administration created a fairly good email archiving system. Bush's people dismantled it upon taking office because they knew they were there to commit fraud even before 9/11.

Yeah the great email system: 100,000 emails were mysteriously never backed up and are irretrievable. Where are Gore's, and about 500 other top officials', email??? I guess this went down the memory hole. Revisionists want history to (mis)remember how "fairly good" the archiving was.http://articles.cnn.com/2000-08-23/politics/white.house.e.mails_1_e-mail-problem-betty-lambuth-computer-problem?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Exchange and Lotus Notes were used for email. Drupal is a content management system, which can be used for discussions, but it doesn't replace email. What Obama uses now, I don't know, but it certainly isn't Drupal for email. It probably is still Exchange with a proper backup system.

When I pointed out at the time that any Exchange admin out in the real world would have been fired, sued, and possibly jailed for the supposed gross incompetence displayed by the White House email admin I was called "conspiracy theorist" on most of the Internet forums that I was participating in (including SlashDot).

Dismantling an email system is nowhere near as bad as WAR. What is it with Republicans and war ever since WWII? Every single war we've fought since Korea was started by a Republican, with Eisenhower sending "consultants" to South Vietnam (granted, both Kennedy and Johnson escalated it). The only Republican President since Hoover who didn't start a war was Ford, and he didn't have time, only being in office a little over two years. Reagan had Grenada, Bush had Iraq, the next Bush had Afghanistan AND Iraq.

"Never proven" only in that too many people don't want to touch it. Everything else about the "October surprise" is a matter of record, from the arms sales to the skullduggery and drug trade that financed part of the deal. But it's too uncomfortable to talk about how the Presidency is actually attained. Same deal with Gore's concession. The U.S. as a whole, from the top to the bottom, is extremely reluctant to think about this sort of thing. And when they do, it's only thru someone like Oliver Stone, who is wacky enough to be dismissed.

While I agree with most of what you state, your last paragraph brings out another point. "The Daily Show" provides more factual news than Fox, NBC, and ABC combined.. and it's a frigging Comedy show for pity's sake! Don't mistake what I said with claiming there is no propaganda on that show. I'm simply pointing out the comedy of errors we are living in currently.

As was Rumsfeld. Nixon pushed the idea of the unitary executive, this theory that the executive branch is superior to all others and not as restricted by checks and balances as the common consensus is. When Nixon says (paraphrasing), "When the President does it, then it's legal." that was unitary executive thinking.

What happened under Bush II was a bunch of ex-Nixon unitary executive types finally getting the opportunity to realize their political philosophy under the administration of a weak, easy to influence President.

What's new is the LBJ tapes showing that he knew about it, and why he did (or didn't) do various things as a result. But yes, the idea that Nixon sabotaged the peace talks has been known for some time. This additional evidence is useful and informative though.

I also thinks it's good that this is in the news (well, in some places) because a lot of people aren't familiar with this. It sounds like a wild-eyed conspiracy theory but unfortunately it's not.

That may be true, and I'm sure that wasn't the first October Surprise either.

Now, as to your false equivalence of "they all do it", as reprehensible as vote rigging is, ask yourself whether it's worse to rig some polls or to subvert peace talks which then leads to the death of 22,000 Americans and I don't know how many of our South Vietnamese allies.

Anything that remains of Nixon's estate (should be traceable still) should be immediately frozen to be used to compensate those affected by this - the families of those who died as a result of this act of treason that continued the war for a further 5 years, and those injured as well.

His entire period of presidency should be blackened (even further?!), his name should be dirt, any offspring should want to change their name to distance themselves from this evil man.

Where are mod points when you need them. "Damnatio memoriae", the ancient Romans called this sort of procedure. With all we know about him by now, it would actually be most appropriate for someone like Nixon.

-Opening relations with China ("Only a Nixon could have gone to China")...which led directly to....-The Anit-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the ensuing state of "detente" with Russia (since it was no longer 2 against 1, with China liking us all of a sudden) that lasted until the fall of Communism-The New Federalism that gave back much power to the states that previously had been the Feds-The first presidential initative to fight/research cancer-Establishing the EPA and staffing it with people with the guts to stand up to his own administration-Enforcing/protecting desegregation before it could be killed by opposition groups and reverted-Prominent supporter of the NEPA, OSHA, and the Clean Air Act-Supported the Equal Rights Ammendment, even though it was killed in Congress-Created the first affirmative action program in the federal govermnment

Even in his time he was considered a moderate, the last of the of the Rockefeller republicans. today he would be dismissed by the party as a liberal.

Key thing to remember: all we have here is an article claiming proof. That IS NOT in itself proof of anything. It's "a friend of a friend", it's hearsay. And all historical measures of the war previous to this, there is zero indication that any of this happened, no indication that they were ever close to a settlement in that time. and this is the sort of thing that would NOT stay secret, that someone would have come forward with years ago.

But no, you're right. We should forget he ever existed and curse his name for years to come, and ignore everything else he did, of which that is only a partial list.

Key thing to remember: all we have here is an article claiming proof. That IS NOT in itself proof of anything. It's "a friend of a friend", it's hearsay. And all historical measures of the war previous to this, there is zero indication that any of this happened, no indication that they were ever close to a settlement in that time. and this is the sort of thing that would NOT stay secret, that someone would have come forward with years ago.

No, we have an article whose source of information is straight from the then President's mouth. You try to claim it's not true, but what exactly would Johnson gain by making this up and saying this on tapes that purposefully would not be declassified until long after him and Nixon would be dead? Also, secrets like this get kept secret all the time as we find out as more and more government documents get declassified. In short: you're the fucking moron.

No, we have an article whose source of information is straight from the then President's mouth. You try to claim it's not true, but what exactly would Johnson gain by making this up and saying this on tapes that purposefully would not be declassified until long after him and Nixon would be dead?

Why? Potential political gain. Not only was LBJ a master politician, he was not above a bit of dirty pool - and the '68 election was one of the bitterest fights of the 20th century. Context cannot be ignored.

This Only Nixon could go to China stuff was bullshit then, and it's still Bullshit. And it wasn't what Spock meant to boot.

Not only that, it was done illegally by bypassing the cabinet. Even then that wasn't why he got to China. The Russian/China border clashes and China's more limited military weaponry had China looking for an ally. His belief that we should leave a billion people to stew in isolation is correct, but he wasn't the only one to believe it.

Who else were the Chinese going to reach out to in order to give the Russians pause about attacking China?

Nixon was against the EPA, but the nation wanted it. He grudgingly created it.

He created a food shortage.

He only endorsed the ERA AFTER it passed both houses."no indication that they were ever close to a settlement in that time. a"that's just wrong.

Some of us were alive and remember these events.He did nothing that wasn't available to any other president. Would a different president done it differently? enough to matter? we will never know.

Several people have, including former representatives of the South Vietnamese government. Of course they were all dismissed by folks like you as "conspiracy theorists".

I'm always amused by this childlike faith in the supposed honesty of politicians and military/intel people. Look up Operation Northwoods, a plan to attack American civilians and American corporations in a false flag attack designed to be blamed on Cuba and manufacture a reason to invade.

Oh JFC! What a ludicrous statement and you obviously have no concept of history. Let's not forget that Johnson through the trumped, made up events that led to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was used to begin offensive operations in Vietnam in the first place? You seem to think that only one party is capable of lying and committing these acts? Please what a lame and retarded viewpoint.

The Gulf of Tonkin resolution and the Johnson administration's push and omissions and stupidity were no different than the Bush administration officials saying "There's WMDs in Iraq!"

In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

Humm, so you think only GW Bush was an idiot huh?

So, Johnson's administration escalated the war in Vietnam based on errors, omissions and Johnson's own stupidity. [wikipedia.org] and lies. [fair.org]

In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

He also got a lot of people killed because of his micro-managing style. Battlefield commanders had to wait for permission from DC to take out targets of opportunity. Because of that we lost a lot of planes and a lot of operations were compromised because people's hands were tied up because

“They can't bomb an outhouse without my say-so.” - Lyndon Johnson

So, he produces trumped up events to commit our troops to war, then micro manages how they operate which gets more of them killed. It sounds like the one who should be brought up on Treason charges should be LBJ!

Anything that remains of Nixon's estate (should be traceable still) should be immediately frozen to be used to compensate those affected by this

US law in general pretty much forbids such posthumous conviction and seizure (there are some exceptions, but they are narrow), and in the case of treason forbids it specifically ("no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted"). The Founding Fathers knew well of the abuses of such things for pol

The worst? GWB went to war on a lie, that he knew was a lie. He did not just sabotaged peace talks, he deliberately destroyed a peace situation and went to war despite a UN opposition. This conflict killed 24000 coalition force personal, including ~ 5000 Americans. Civilian victims are estimated between 100k and 1mil.

He destroyed US reputation, he destroyed UN credibility. He lied to his people and to congress. But because this was not about sex, it seems less important.

Most of those people showed up again in prominent roles during the Reagan administration.

Which would mean that Iran-Contra was the repeat of the same crime: There's evidence that Reagan's campaign undermined Jimmy Carter's efforts to negotiate a settlement in 1980, because as soon as Reagan was inaugurated the US hostages were released, and shortly afterwords the Iranians got a sweet sweet (illegal) deal for buying weapons from the US.

It very likely lead to the fall of South Vietnam as well. At the time of those peace talks, the VC and the NVA were at a low point. The Tet Offensive earlier in 1968 was a tactical disaster. The VC were largely destroyed and the NVA wasn't in great shape either. Giap was relieved of command of the NVA because it was such a mess. A peace accord would likely have meant an end to any serious help from the USSR, just as it did after the Korean ceasefire. Without Soviet weapons and supplies the NVA would have been nothing. I assure you they couldn't manufacture their own SAM's.

"He may have won by a narrow margin in '68, but he won reelection by a landslide. that doesn't happen to "bad presidents"."sure is does. Getting votes just means you are popular, not that you are a good person, leader, or military tactician.

Also, people vote on what they 'know' at the time. Had people actually know what he was doing, ti may have been a different story.His landslide was largely based on ending Vietnam..they very war his action kept going for years after it was going to win.

Yes, it is just. They can keep anything they earned/saved in their lifetime. Any wealth amassed prior should be confiscated. (i.e "your dad stole this car, no you can't keep it")

So what if I don't have the car anymore? Do I need to pay for it? What if I've made bad investments, and no longer have as much as you'd confiscate - will I be made a debt slave for the rest of my life through no fault of my own?

You are describing a situation here where no one - not the wealthy and not the poor - can ever be safe o

What are the odds of a sociopath like him being elected president? Quite good, because being a sociopath *helps you* win elections. In fact it gives you a tremendous advantage. Given how competitive elections are, it would be astonishing if presidents weren't sociopaths.

Peace talks. LBJ escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War, from 16,000 American advisors/soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 combat troops by early 1968. And Johnson wants to blame someone else for sabotaging peace talks. Go sell the Brooklyn Bridge to someone else.

You are so right. I am old enough (sigh) to remember the Johnson-Goldwater election campaign of 1964, and in that campaign Goldwater talked escalating the war while Johnson said he would wind it down. Then that bastard turned around and essentially did everything Goldwater had threatened to do, the lying scum.On the other hand, this hardly makes Noxin's treason any less despicable.Conclusion: mostly all politicians are trash.

Escalating the conflict over a five year period is one thing, and sabotaging peace talks to win an election is another. Neither is a good thing certainly, but one being true does not make the other untrue.

While Nixon's actions certainly border on treason, he was dealing with South Vietnam, an ally. On the other hand, prior to the 1980 election Reagan bargained with Iran, an enemy, to keep Americans imprisoned and subvert the election. It's hard to see that as anything less than treason.

There's strong evidence that Regan's October Surprise was real. There's also Strong evidence that the moon landings are real. I'm capable of believing in both. Nice try trying to paint me as a loon though through a weak association to a completely unrelated topic. Any debaters/logic guys here know which fallacy that is?

Bani-Sadr, the former President of Iran, has also stated "that the Reagan campaign struck a deal with Teheran to delay the release of the hostages in 1980," asserting that "by the month before the American Presidential election in November 1980, many in Iran's ruling circles were openly discussing the fact that a deal had been made between the Reagan campaign team and some Iranian religious leaders in which the hostages' release would be delayed until after the

as it's pretty much iron clad evidence. Maybe I misunderstood, but these are tapes of LBJ discussing the topic without the slightest question of whether it happened. It's all pretty well documented from what I can tell.

Also, happy to see this story on slashdot. Yeah, it's not tech news and I know that bugs people, but Christ. The way I heard about this was the Mother-lovin' BBC. This is the biggest news since Watergate and the news media is just pretending it didn't happen. Part of me wants to say 'Oh well, that's America' but screw that. I'm sick of saying things could be worse when they could be so much better.

You are totally correct. Two wrongs make a right and Nixon was a swell fella because he wasn't any of those other guys.

If we reduce the argument to tribal squabbles and liberal Democrats vs neo-conservative Republicans, we can happily ignore the real issues of right vs wrong, moral vs immoral and honest vs dishonest. And we don't want to be dealing with those, do we?

You are so horribly misinformed it's not funny. You probably got most of this from Fox.One question: do you really think we shouldn't gave entered WWI or WWII?Note that the US was already in Korea at the end of WWII and war was inevitable.The Vietnam war was just plain wrong.

The US entry into WWI was a disaster. It caused a war that would have probably ended in a draw to become a blowout with severe, punitive and vindictive penalties for the loser. Those penalties were a large part of the ultimate causes of WWII.